Euthanasia and Ethics, Research Paper Example

One of the most crucial issues in contemporary bioethics is the problem of euthanasia. A clear definition of euthanasia is provided by Georgios Anagnostopolous who writes, “at the most basic level, euthanasia is the termination of a life by an act that interferes in some way or other with the natural or normal course of events as far as the continuation of life is concerned.” (251) Traditionally, this “interference” has been addressed from various ethical, moral, religious and legal perspectives. Nevertheless, all these common perspectives may be viewed in terms of the relationship between individual autonomy and greater society. The individual’s right to choose death is the decisive event of the euthanasia debate: why this right becomes problematic is because it occurs within the context of a relation to a greater societal body that will include or exclude the possibility of this choice.

By considering the problem in this manner, we shall argue in favor of euthanasia according to an emphasis on the notions of individual autonomy and human rights. Insofar as a society claims such notions as its founding ethical concepts, it appears that euthanasia must be allowed into the ethical living space in order to realize these very concepts. Such an argument is essentially based on a more fundamental ethical question regarding the anthropological and philosophical question of what constitutes human life. As James F. Drane notes: “Whether or not an individual or a society endorses killing acts depends upon a vision of what a human life is.” (87) In other words, positions that either support or oppose euthanasia indicate a deeper philosophical viewpoint concerning the notion of human life. In societies that emphasize personal autonomy and the rights of free choice, the “vision of human life” is therefore contemplated in terms of individuals. That is to say, societies that support euthanasia practices are not making a claim that individual human life is worthless. Rather, they are making two simultaneous claims: one about the individual and the second about the individual’s relation to society. The first claim essentially states that society shall not infringe on the autonomy of an individual. In other words, the society lets the individual pursue his or her own life-path and make his or her own existential decisions. The society stresses the individuals’ rights over some greater, imaginary view of what constitutes human life. Secondly, by providing medical practices that support euthanasia, the society is claiming that the primary goal of the state apparatus and society as a whole is to allow people to pursue their existential choices to the greatest fulfillment. As Dixie Dennis observes, many patients choose euthanasia because of “fears of pain or a painful death, lack of quality of life, and lack of hope…furthermore, they might fear physical disintegration and loss of function and loss of personal relationships.” (42) All these fears and concerns are profoundly individual concerns. By allowing euthanasia, one is essentially acknowledging the intimacy of these issues and the right the individual has to make an autonomous, existential decision concerning these issues.

The opposition to euthanasia may consider this approach as the formation of a society that endorses a culture of death. That is, they will take the exact opposite position: by allowing euthanasia the state is making a claim that it does not value human life. Rather euthanasia represents “a decline in our moral standards once we permit the taking of human life.” (Johnstone, 272) From this perspective, the claims to individuality are empty rhetoric: they represent a subconscious decision to devalue human life. However, this decision essentially is rooted in a broader societal claim, as opposed to concentrating on the individual’s autonomy. In other words, the state becomes central to the euthanasia debate, as opposed to individual cases. Autonomy is forgotten in the debates over some imaginary essential values that are held by a given society.

The debate concerning euthanasia therefore can be understood as follows: Those against euthanasia generally appeal to a greater historical or traditional narrative, to some common ideological values that a society has held over time. They will argue from a humanistic position that emphasizes the communal aspect of human life and shared values and judgments on this life. The movement in favor of euthanasia essentially counteracts this account by emphasizing the rights of the individual over any imaginary essential values of a society. Accordingly, society’s primary aim should be to facilitate the individual in realizing his or her own autonomous decisions. Our argument in favor of euthanasia is thus precisely concerned with the notion of autonomy, against the ultimately mythological and ideological narrative of a communal societal essence.

Works Cited

Anagnostopoulos, Geogios. “Euthanasia and the Physician’s Role: Reflections on Some Views in the Ancient Greek Tradition”, In Bioethics: Ancient Themes in Contemporary Issues. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2002.

Dennis, Dixie. Living, Dying, Grieving. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2008.

Drane, James F. Clinical Bioethics: Theory and Practice in Medical Ethical Decision- Making. Kansas City, MO: Sheed & Ward, 1994.

Johnstone, Megan-Jane. Bioethics: A Nursing Perspective. Chatswood, Australia: Elsevier Health Sciences, 2008.